ROBERT E. LEE: OUR GREATEST GENERAL?

[DoodleDawg]

They were Asked Politely to leave after being told that South Carolina was no longer part of the Union.

So if I ask you politely to give me your house would you do it?

[rockrr]

I’m surrounded by the graves, the battlefields and the carnage that the US did to our country.

"Don't chew off more than you can swallow"

[rockrr]

The fort belonged to the United States of America. It wasn’t their place to be evicting US troops from a US fort - politely or otherwise.

[Bull Snipe]

Grant lost about 55,000 men in 6 weeks of almost continuous combat that comprised the Overland Campaign.
Lee lost as many men (about 35,000) in the Overland campaign as he did in the 4 days of battle that Antietam and Gettysburg comprised. Shovel up your on rational if you want. Bottom line. Grant won, Lee lost. In war, winning is the only thing that counts.

[BroJoeK]

panzerkamphwageneinz: "No, I’m saying that when someone says that men who fought for the South deserved to be exterminated is wrong."

But if we understand the word "exterminated" in the same sense Jefferson Davis meant it, then it really only means: killed or defeated in battle.
Jefferson Davis, I'm certain, did not intend to imply that anyone other than soldiers in battle should be "exterminated".
You disagree?

panzerkamphwageneinz: "How you conflate that with being Democrat is your problem."

Because Democrats are all about, among other things, speech police, which you might understand better if I translate it to your own language: Rede Polizei.
Before the Civil War Democrats imposed a gag order on Congress to prevent any discussion of slavery there.
Today Democrats declare a long list of words & topics "off limits" as not "politically correct".
So, whenever you find yourself trying to control the language & words of others, that's your little inner Democrat at work.

panzerkamphwageneinz: "If a Southerner says, ‘we’ll fight for victory or we’ll be exterminated.”
is a far cry from a Southerner saying, “The Northerners all have to be exterminated,”
The first is a will to fight or die. "

Of course, but it's very easy to get sloppy with language and say something you don't intend.
For example, if you say, "We are fighting for our independence and that, or extermination, we will have," think about just who that "we" might refer to and what form "extermination" might take.
Of course it's all just hyperbole, but when is hyperbole OK and when not?
OK when you use it but not OK when I do?

panzerkamphwageneinz: "The second is a desire for holocaust.
It’t not my fault you don’t know the difference."

Of course I know the difference, but there was no Holocaust in the Civil War, either literal or figurative, regardless of hyperbole.
Therefore, a discussion of Civil War "extermination" cannot refer to something which didn't yet exist.

panzerkamphwageneinz: "You can use Saul Alynsky all you want to try and demonize my values and defense of the men in grey, but you’re the one being exposed, not me. "

But nobody is demonizing anyone, except when you accused Jefferson Davis of not being a gentleman for using the word "extermination" of his own people!
I merely pointed out that "extermination" does not always mean literal or figurative Holocaust.

panzerkamphwageneinz: " You lost the argument when you slandered me as a Democrat..."

Well, real Democrats can't be slandered, because they take it as a badge of honor.
If the President calls them "fake news" they love it, because it makes them legit in their viewers eyes.
So, if you feel somehow slandered to be called Democrat, then you aren't really one, regardless of your latent speech-police tendencies.

panzerkamphwageneinz: "...what’s next NAZI? HOMOPHOBE? RACIST?
My God don’t to the distance and claim I’m a TRUMP SUPPORTER!"

No, only Democrats do cr*p like that, and your inability to grasp the point here suggests you may be more of one than you wish to admit.

[BroJoeK]

Lagmeister: "And no, Lee's losses at Gettysburg and Antietam did not amount to the nearly 70 thousand that Grant pissed away in the Overland Campaign."

Lee's total losses in his losing effort were greater than Grant's war winning battles.
Grant imposed more casualties on his enemies than on his own forces, and as a percentage of his forces, Grant's losses were far less.

Presumably you'll want to challenge me to produce the numbers, and I can, but will have to wait for later, must go for now.

[sailor76]

So if I ask you politely to give me your house would you do it?
===============

Inaccurate analogy , but nice try.

[sailor76]

The fort belonged to the United States of America. It wasn’t their place to be evicting US troops from a US fort - politely or otherwise.
================

And since that territory was no longer part of the United States, and since the United States and the Confederacy didn't have a treaty concerning such forts; the presence of the Fort became a hostile military action against the Confederacy.

The rest is history.

[rockrr]

The fort - and the ground it was constructed upon - was never not part of the United States. There was a brief period when treasonous insurrectionists illegally seized it, but that was rectified.

The rest is history

[Lagmeister]

You are playing with numbers and you know it. Try dealing with the facts at hand. No way in hell can Grant explain away his horrific losses because of his Overland Strategy. No way you can explain it away. Stop trying to suggest that in the Overland Strategy that Grant inflicted more casualties on Lee than he suffered. Hell, Lee didn't have that many men in his entire army.

Stop trying to go back to 1862. Both men had completely different challenges.

Grant butchered almost as many of his own men in a few months than the number of casualties that Lee suffered in the years of his entire command. In short: it took Grant months to lose what Lee lost in over three years.

[sailor76]

treasonous insurrectionists illegally seized it, but that was rectified.
=======================

Wow, what an ignorant statement. The axe you're grinding is more than skin deep..........or is it?

Probably not. Right?

[Lagmeister]

My numbers indicate Grant lost about 70 thousand in three months (Wilderness... Spotsylvania... Cold Harbor and going forward). Lee lost a little of 80 thousand in his entire command over the entire war.

You are trying to pick and chose whatever sources you like.

I've checked mine.

[Bull Snipe]

Prove to me your source is accurate. Bet you that if you looked at 5 authors, you would get 5 different totals of casualties.

Lee lost a little of 80 thousand in his entire command over the entire war. He also lost the war.

[DoodleDawg]

Inaccurate analogy , but nice try.

Why? Sumter was the property of the federal government. Just because someone Asked Politely that they leave didn't change that.

[DoodleDawg]

And since that territory was no longer part of the United States, and since the United States and the Confederacy didn't have a treaty concerning such forts; the presence of the Fort became a hostile military action against the Confederacy.

Again, why? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you were correct and Charleston was no longer part of the U.S., what hostile action had the fort taken?

[DoodleDawg]

Grant butchered almost as many of his own men in a few months than the number of casualties that Lee suffered in the years of his entire command. In short: it took Grant months to lose what Lee lost in over three years.

May I ask your source for that please?

[HandyDandy]

It does seem that sailor76 is saying that at the moment South Carolina declared secession, ”the presence of the Fort became a hostile military action”. As if knowing that Ft Sumter merely was present in S.C., S.C would know that the moment they seceded, the mere presence of the Fort became a hostile military action. As if the Fort didn’t exist until S.C. declared secession. Or, as if S.C. caused a hostile military action to be perpetrated upon themselves (by the presence of the Fort) by seceding. It’s a tough one.

[sailor76]

It’s a tough one.
============

It's easy unless you are a staunch unionist and believe entry into the Union was a one-way-street. I've stated my ancestors fought for the Union and I'm getting tired of arguing points that books have been written on.

So I'm gone from this thread, like the wind.

(Feel free to have the last word)

[mac_truck]

You are so wrong, you should make reservations at “The Red Hen”...

Best comment I've read today!

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

My! We are having a tempest in a teapot, aren’t we? Let’s change the subject to something you’re more comfortable with: what’s your favorite color?

Who is "we"? You and your ego?

As mentioned above, i'm too busy laughing at you on this particular issue to have any sort of tempest, and frankly an anonymous poster isn't really worth my effort to get angry. .

And just to satisfy your curiousity...black is my favourite colour. (just keeping the personna of the screen name).

All of this said, i agree with much of what you have posted on this thread to others. i find much of this very distasteful. You are simply mistaken on the issue of Lee having a heart attack during the Gettysburg Campaign.

Lee did have a case of bowel problems during the Gettysburg Campaign. Some say dysentery, but one does not recover from that as rapidly as did Lee. That certainly would have affected his mobility (although he seemed to get around well enough on the first day of the battle). However, there is no evidence that he had a bout of angina pectoris let alone a heart attack during Gettysburg.

Incidentally, my wife is writing a dissertation on medical issues during the US Civil War as well as a book on the life of D. H. Hill. She has run across no evidence of Lee having a heart attack or incident of angina pectoris during the Gettysburg Campaign. We live in the Gettysburg area, and know many of the battlefield guides and some of the major authors of books on the Gettysburg campaign.